The issue under consideration is whether the addition u/s 68 is justified in case of issuance of shares in exchange of shares?
Price Waterhouse & Co. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Since the addition on basis for which AO reopened assessment had already been disclosed by assessee in the return of income filed by him u/s 139(1), AO having not carried out the scrutiny assessment within the prescribed statutory limit, could not be given another innings for […]
The issue under consideration is whether payment of minimum guarantee royalty for purchasing right to reproduce film-music is considered as capital expense or revenue expense?
Vidya Bharati Society for Education & Scientific Advancement Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) Merely because the contributions from students were collected under the nomenclature of development fee cannot ipso facto lead to conclusion that it cannot be considered to be corpus contribution. It is true that in terms of section 12(1) read with section 11(1)(d) of […]
Clause (h) of Rule 2A specifically provides that ‘salary’ includes dearness allowance, if the terms of employment so provede, but excludes all other allowances and perquisites. Accordingly, the performance bonus received by the appellant did not form part of ‘salary’ for the purposes of computing exemption u/s 10(13A) of the Act.
Since both the nature & source of the share application received was fully explained by assessee thus, assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants and addition made by AO u/s 68 was based on conjectures and surmises which could not be justified.
The issue under consideration is whether Additional Depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) will be allowed if the assessee engaged in generation of electricity?
ITAT states that, in the given facts and circumstances and going by the clauses of the Scheme and reading them harmoniously and together the Tribunal held that the transfer of Lift Division comes within the purview of Section 2(47) of the Act but cannot be termed as a slump sale.
While passing the assessment order AO had followed the permissible view in law which could not be said to be ‘unsustainable in law’. Therefore, the jurisdictional facts for usurping the jurisdiction u/s 263, being absent, the action of CIT to exercise revisional jurisdiction was without jurisdiction and all subsequent actions were ‘null’ in the eyes of law.
While computing book profit u/s 115JB, assessee company was entitled, to deduct the B/F business losses as the restriction, contained in Sec.72 of the I.T. Act on carrying forward the unabsorbed business losses for more than 8 years, did not apply in computing the Adjusted Book Profit u/s 115JB.
